It is currently Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:44 am


Dealing with Voidgate "Batteries"

Tell the world your Dropfleet related trials and tribulations!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Bistromatic

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:30 am
  • Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Dealing with Voidgate "Batteries"

PostTue May 16, 2017 6:31 pm

Sneaky bastards! When exactly did that happen? :lol:
Offline
User avatar

Cry of the Wind

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 964
  • Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:27 pm
  • Location: Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Re: Dealing with Voidgate "Batteries"

PostTue May 16, 2017 6:37 pm

Bistromatic wrote:Sneaky bastards! When exactly did that happen? :lol:


This morning 8-) . Talons knew about it coming but it went live today.
Offline
User avatar

Bistromatic

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:30 am
  • Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Dealing with Voidgate "Batteries"

PostTue May 16, 2017 6:54 pm

Just checked facebook, that's not morning for me :D
~timezones~

Talons knew! *glances below nickname* :lol:
Offline
User avatar

Cry of the Wind

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 964
  • Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:27 pm
  • Location: Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Re: Dealing with Voidgate "Batteries"

PostTue May 16, 2017 7:24 pm

Haha missed that part, on mobile easy to miss. Just surprised since your comment before about using dishonourable rules doesnt mesh with you knowing they are removing them when they are brought up.
Offline
User avatar

Bistromatic

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:30 am
  • Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Dealing with Voidgate "Batteries"

PostTue May 16, 2017 8:23 pm

I take confidentiality seriously plus J.D. seemed to feign ignorance too :P
Hadn't noticed the changes were actually out.
Offline
User avatar

J.D. Welch

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 5126
  • Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:16 am
  • Location: Gilbert, AZ, USA

Re: Dealing with Voidgate "Batteries"

PostWed May 17, 2017 3:18 am

I was feigning ignorance. :P

And no one I know has given anyone the "stink eye" over these (no longer legal) moves, because all of the Shaltari players in our meta took it upon themselves to house rule them as "while technically legal, not in the spirit of the game" (or however you would like to phrase it to suit your tastes), and never used them.

Come to Phoenix. It will likely be quite an education. (I suggest coming in August -- the weather is divine! :lol: )
I love my job (well, I love having a job), but a bad day of gaming beats a good day of work every time!

http://www.theroadtovalhalla.blogspot.com
Offline

Tychonaut

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:25 pm

Re: Dealing with Voidgate "Batteries"

PostWed May 17, 2017 11:15 am

J.D. Welch wrote:
And no one I know has given anyone the "stink eye" over these (no longer legal) moves, because all of the Shaltari players in our meta took it upon themselves to house rule them as "while technically legal, not in the spirit of the game" (or however you would like to phrase it to suit your tastes), and never used them.



Rules As Intended (RAI) over Rules As Written (RAW)


I am very pleased to see the suprise clarification of how the Voidgate is supposed to work.
Offline
User avatar

Bistromatic

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:30 am
  • Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Dealing with Voidgate "Batteries"

PostThu May 18, 2017 7:54 am

J.D. Welch wrote:I was feigning ignorance. :P

And no one I know has given anyone the "stink eye" over these (no longer legal) moves, because all of the Shaltari players in our meta took it upon themselves to house rule them as "while technically legal, not in the spirit of the game" (or however you would like to phrase it to suit your tastes), and never used them.

Come to Phoenix. It will likely be quite an education. (I suggest coming in August -- the weather is divine! :lol: )


I'm genuinely curious, did people just house rule the Max Thrust interaction or Ground Asset Relocation as well?

Note that i'm really not opposed at all to tweaking the rules based on mutual agreement if some aspect proves to be detrimental. But that's not what was going on in your post, you clearly painted legal moves as something that should not be done because it's "gamey" and exploitative.

And i can extend the same invitation. (easier to get into Germany than the US currently :P ) Locally the prevailing attitude is "If it's a legal move it's fine and i don't want my opponent pulling punches". It's easy to think of that as us all being super serious no-fun WAACs but that's not at all what's going on.

Tychonaut wrote:Rules As Intended (RAI) over Rules As Written (RAW)


I am very pleased to see the suprise clarification of how the Voidgate is supposed to work.


I'll give you Max Thrust and deployment. Just from the book i would have guessed it not to be possible. On the other hand from what i heard Dave's response when asked was "Yeah its legal but we're looking into changing it" not like Simons "Wait, what?" like Demo on the Phoenix missiles :lol: Definitely room for debate here what the intent was

Relocation however was very clear that there originally was not supposed to be a cap.

"Any number of tokens may be moved by a single Voidgate in this way as the power requirements are far lower than a new deployment from orbit and this does not count towards the Voidgate's Capacity."

Now this apparently didn't pan out and props to Hawk for changing it. I'm mostly mentioning this because i think people are too quick to try and divine intent.
Offline
User avatar

Major Awesome

  • Posts: 286
  • Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:27 pm
  • Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Dealing with Voidgate "Batteries"

PostThu May 18, 2017 6:51 pm

In Phoenix we didn't even think about Max Thrust until the day of LVO when we asked Dave at random about it and got the "yeah... but..." response. We tried it a bit after that but it just felt wrong, so we didn't do it TOO often. Just on special occasions ;) We also began really building up more factions after LVO (like UCM for me) so the opportunity to do this didn't present itself as often as it would have otherwise.

Bistromatic wrote:Relocation however was very clear that there originally was not supposed to be a cap.

"Any number of tokens may be moved by a single Voidgate in this way as the power requirements are far lower than a new deployment from orbit and this does not count towards the Voidgate's Capacity."

Now this apparently didn't pan out and props to Hawk for changing it. I'm mostly mentioning this because i think people are too quick to try and divine intent.


In Phoenix we played it how (I think?) they originally envisioned- we never really did the "build up a billion then shunt" tactic. From Day 1 through the major tourneys (like LVO) we played voidgates forward and put as near 100% of our drop capacity onto contested sectors right away, to start the fight and whittling down of enemy forces. THEN when a cluster was clearly dominated we would shunt extra troops to clusters we were wanted to swing the balance. This ended up being like a Troopship that just reached it's target in other factions terms.

However, then people in other metas started to avoid the fight altogether and just swarmed Turn 3/5. Now the way we've always played, which is how people are forced to play now, is hampered.
~Major Awesome~
Hedgehog schemer, Resistance lover, and on those random full moons when PHR aren't everywhere my true nature as cyborg comes out.
Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest